Good bye, Twinkie – Hostess Brands liquidates

Hostess Brands Inc. of Irving, Texas, says it has filed for bankruptcy liquidation because workers, members of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers Union, struck its plants, including one in Sacramento.

Hopefully someone will buy the plant equipment and move it to a right to work state.

And so we get to the crux of the problem: all those numbers and signatures on contracts for homes outside the boondocks have to either be changed or they get bought by the fed. Pushing the reset button on industrial stability and workers rights will get the nobility reborn. Be careful what you wish for.

With Hostess shutdown, boxes of Twinkies, Ho Hos going for $100 and more on eBay

A box of Ho Hos is being sold for $59.99, while a 48-pack of Zingers is going for $43.

One trickster claims to have “the last Twinkie in the heartland” and the single dessert has a starting bid of $50, but you can buy it right now for $5,235.

Other sellers are taking more modest approaches with starting bids from $11 to $15.

The best eBay listing so far comes from a seller who wants to give away his last 10-count box of Twinkies for $595 – but there’s a catch: There are only four cakes left because the seller “got into them this morning.” But how can you go wrong with an expiration date of 12-02-2057?

That's probably what they would have to sell for at retail in order to pay what the unions thugs wanted.

All Hostess Brands employees will lose their jobs in the coming weeks, some sooner than others, the company announced Friday. The layoffs span nationwide, and represent a deep cut in mid-wage jobs that often came with benefits. The company had operated 33 bakeries, 565 distribution centers and 570 outlet stores across the country.

Many production workers earned up to $20 an hour, plus had access to medical benefits, according to Michael O'Brien, a former Hostess employee who had worked at the company for 45 years, in various sales functions, before he was offered a buyout last year.

"People inside the plants really made a good living," O'Brien said. "I feel sorry for them."

That's $20 an hour to wheel baker's trays of Twinkies around a plant, and take smoke breaks while the Ho Hos are in the oven.
I wonder what books the guy that pushes the Green button in the morning then the Red button at quitting time, read in between?

Yes, the real problem in this country is that junk food is too expensive. We need to keep wages low so that we can make cheap junk food that low wage earners can afford.

So you're saying the Liberal Union assault on Hostess was all about saving us from our selves, and you really didn't give a good rip about the plight of those employees that work there. They are better suited on the Welfare dole for the Liberal cause after all. I mean there's always 2016, and the Liberals needs votes. I wonder when Cadillac will make the Welfare edition of the XKS?

All to save me from my fat ass from my self. YET! The corn ethanol subsidy was upheld by the EPA today, in spite of the drought. It's bloody Liberal perfecta, you should take those odds to the track.

I work in a union shop myself...although I am a salary manager. Truth is, even with good management, it's hard for union shops to compete. They're up against free trade, competing with foreign countries paying next to nothing for wages and no benefits, American non union shops with lower pay and lesser benefits and no pensions, and American consumers wanting the cheapest goods possible. The long slow decline will continue.

As far as hostess in particular, how can you afford to pay union wages when you're selling $2 low value products? It's not car manufacturing or steel production where there is a lot of money to be made on each sale. I would think it would be hard to make a profit this way even with tremendous volume.

Yes, the real problem in this country is that junk food is too expensive. We need to keep wages low so that we can make cheap junk food that low wage earners can afford.

So you're saying the Liberal Union assault on Hostess was all about saving us from our selves, and you really didn't give a good rip about the plight of those employees that work there. They are better suited on the Welfare dole for the Liberal cause after all. I mean there's always 2016, and the Liberals needs votes. I wonder when Cadillac will make the Welfare edition of the XKS?

All to save me from my fat ass from my self. YET! The corn ethanol subsidy was upheld by the EPA today, in spite of the drought. It's bloody Liberal perfecta, you should take those odds to the track.

No, that isn't exactly what I'm saying. I am merely pointing out that wages have stagnated for a long time in this country.

The problem isn't that Hostess paid it's employees too much, it is that their competitors pay their employees too little. (That and some dumbass management decisions with the business)

Twinkies can be made anywhere in the world. They travel well and last forever. So yeah, I can see how cheap labor competitors would want to move in to the US market. Especially when they are not required to say that their product was made in Vietnam or Indonesia.

Look, I understand people getting pissed off at the union being so firm and, possibly, shooting itself in the foot. But don't you think that maybe the discussion should be how can we get wages to go up?

We are in a race to the bottom as far as compensation is concerned and its a race we will lose even if we win it.

Instead, why not enforce living wage salaries in the US and tax imports more? Businesses want a level playing field. People want a decent wage. It is the job of governments to make both happen and keep both happy.

Instead, why not enforce living wage salaries in the US and tax imports more? Businesses want a level playing field. People want a decent wage. It is the job of governments to make both happen and keep both happy.

Some people want to pay slave wages and have high housing costs too. Can't imagine why. Maybe they want to own 100% of everything, your wife, and your daughter too?

You're right but If you can get kids to eat wonder bread for kids (with vegis and milk), I am satisified, lol. White Bread taste better than Grain. He (they 5, and 2 1/2) eats it straight up, no jam, jelly, spread or meat..

White bread, delicious and nutritious (in someones bizarro world).

Is it any wonder why bigphrma and the health insurance companies are sucking us dry, when you have people crying foul because the great american icon hostess won't be making twinkies any longer, and otherwise seemingly informed individuals such as Mark here are patting themselves on the back for feeding their kids white bread while avoiding meat,,,,,

Their "food" was overprocessed, tasted horrible and with the multitudes of knock-offs such as the walmart brands, little debbie, etc they had no chance.

Hostess needed to change with the times and chose not to. Had they attempted to offer healthier fare, change their recipes to at least giving the appearance of health, and attempted to work with the union perhaps they would have had a chance.

I'm sure that management will make a shitload of bonuses and such that their "retirement" will be assured. The line workers - well, that's a different story.

I blame Michelle Obama and her Liberal cohorts. If only she had planted twinkies and those horrible hostess cupcakes in her White House garden, the rest of the country would have blindly followed & done the same. She could have saved Hostess brands, but instead she chose to plant tomatos & cucumbers.

Yup, that's me. I'm over here with my freaking thing doing that stuff I do, to suppress information I know nothing about, from people I never knew existed. Pointing my ridiculously oversize foam finger at Obama.

I'm clearly no match for Facebook.

I think there is a knee-jerk reaction to blame the unions. I understand those who have legitimate gripes with public unions that have essentially been bribed with excessive benefits packages by politicians. (of course it is not the union workers fault if local politicians want their vote so badly) But this isn't the case here.

I think there is a knee-jerk reaction to blame the unions. I understand those who have legitimate gripes with public unions that have essentially been bribed with excessive benefits packages by politicians. (of course it is not the union workers fault if local politicians want their vote so badly) But this isn't the case here.

But there is a reason why the right likes to blame unions: Their politicians tell them to. Why? It doesn't take a rocket scientist. Unions have for generations leaned more Democratic and have also contributed money to the Democratic party. So the plan seems to be amongst the GOP to tell their followers that "Its all the union's fault!" in an attempt to try and limit the union influence in politics. So basically they've succeeded in telling their followers that lower wages and lower working safety conditions are "Good" for them.... yes- otherwise they've be in one of those stinkin' unions. Its simply manipulated propaganda, that's all.

Thank God the real story is making the rounds on facebook, 'cuz the "blame the unions" crowd here sure isn't gonna let anyone in on it.

OK, so these 10 people's raise drove the company to the ground? The number does not add up. And wouldn't it be in their best interest to keep the company going? So they can get paid more at the inflated salary? We are talking only about $4 million in increased overhead.

If they are making $20 an hour, the annual salary is more than $40K. $4million divide by 18,000 people will be a little over $200. That is less than 0.6% of the salary each worker. Each worker needs to give up only 0.6% to pay the executive overhead. That is no where near 8%. It is easy to blame the executives. But it does seem that Union could have saved this company.

If they are making $20 an hour, the annual salary is more than $40K. $4million divide by 18,000 people will be a little over $200. That is less than 0.6% of the salary each worker. Each worker needs to give up only 0.6% to pay the executive overhead. That is no where near 8%. It is easy to blame the executives. But it does seem that Union could have saved this company.

First off, the article said some positions got paid UP to $20/hr. So, I'll assume those are the mechanics, lab techs, or instrument techs. The operator positions were most likely less than that.

But the real point is--why should the unions keep giving? Did salary positions take a pay cut 4 yrs ago? Why didn't the management take cuts to keep the business going?

The simple answer is if the ceo leaves, their New ceo will cost 5x more to bring on board given the risk, disrupt business, raise flags to creditor and stakeholders. e union worker leaves, they pay the next in line less. That's just reality.

The simple answer is if the ceo leaves, their New ceo will cost 5x more to bring on board given the risk, disrupt business, raise flags to creditor and stakeholders. e union worker leaves, they pay the next in line less. That's just reality.

Well, that is exactly the type of thing that they would do, and yes it is stupid. The problem is that corporate America seems to buy into this idea of CEO entitlement to huge pay and bonuses regardless of if they succeed or fail at their job. Is there any other job, in the world, where someone can make that much money when they suck at their job and royally fuck up a company destroying the livelihoods of hundreds or thousands of others in the process?

Does that have to be the reality? No.

What they should do is headhunt the top people who are just out of business school a year or two. Offer them: 1/5 of what the current CEO is making, the opportunity to run a billion-dollar company, a butt-load (of currently worthless) stock options that vest in 5 years, bonuses based on performance (not to exceed 30% of salary). I do not doubt that Hostess would end up with a good list of qualified applicants who have a much better chance of turning the company around; much more motivated to succeed than a CEO who comes in having negotiated the large payout they get when they are either fired or the company fails.

Oh, yeah, they also should replace anyone who makes more money than the "new" CEO.

You can say the Board and CEO are friends, but mostly it's a business decision.

That's where you lose me. How is it good business to give a failing CEO a raise? Or hire a retread CEO that has either been fired or taken a previous company into bankruptcy?

Why isn't it better to promote a good VP? Someone relatively young. You can't tell me that there aren't lots of these folks that are dying for the opportunity to run a company. And wouldn't require $1MM salaries.

Second, you are asking management to: Perform mass restructuring, fend off creditors, fight with vendors who are nervous, negotiate with unions who are nervous, execute compliced business plans, look for a buyer. It is a very stressful time for management. Based on the itinery, I would be asking for huge raise too with the understanding that if I fail, the whole team would be fired. So the fact that the BOD give them the raise meant they "bought in". Several million dollar is sofa change compared to what the stake was. It's not like they have several years, they had a short timetable.

Aren't the rank-and-file workers needed to run the company as well? Doesn't the company need them to be "bought in" as well?

Giving some employees a huge pay raise, while giving others a big pay cut is a great way to disincentivise the workers getting the pay cut.